Conservatism Has Lost Touch With Reality

[4588686]

[url="http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/19/zakaria-conservatism-has-lost-touch-with-reality/"]http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/19/zakaria-conservatism-has-lost-touch-with-reality/[/url]


In greater detail...


[i]"Conservatism is true." That's what George Will told me when I interviewed him as an eager student many years ago. His formulation might have been a touch arrogant, but Will's basic point was intelligent. Conservatism, he explained, was rooted in reality. Unlike the abstract theories of Marxism and socialism, it started not from an imagined society but from the world as it actually exists. From Aristotle to Edmund Burke, the greatest conservative thinkers have said that to change societies, one must understand them, accept them as they are and help them evolve.
[/i]
Read more: [url="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077943,00.html#ixzz1QzRXHN2i"]http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077943,00.html#ixzz1QzRXHN2i[/url]

[Era Might]

I recently started reading "The Communist Manifesto." I haven't gotten too far into it, and it's really my first direct engagement with Marxism, but I was quite surprised at how...insightful it is in its critique of capitalism. That doesn't mean I'm a Marxist, but at least Marx is insightful. I can't think of one politician today, conservative or liberal, who I would consider insightful. That's my problem with politics today. It's all so superficial and blind and unable to really engage in the conversation that carries on from age to age. Not that every political discussion has to be a philosophical discussion, but I wouldn't look to our politicians to engage in real insightful thinking in ANY conversation. Although our judges seem like insightful people.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Era Might

[ThePenciledOne]

So much win in this thread already, from Hasan's Topic title to Era Might's post.

We went over Marx in my Kant/Modern class, and the early Marx really wasn't that bad at all. I too found him insightful and correct even in his conclusions/observances.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1309646077' post='2262292']
[url="http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/19/zakaria-conservatism-has-lost-touch-with-reality/"]http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/19/zakaria-conservatism-has-lost-touch-with-reality/[/url]


In greater detail...


[i]"Conservatism is true." That's what George Will told me when I interviewed him as an eager student many years ago. His formulation might have been a touch arrogant, but Will's basic point was intelligent. Conservatism, he explained, was rooted in reality. Unlike the abstract theories of Marxism and socialism, it started not from an imagined society but from the world as it actually exists. From Aristotle to Edmund Burke, the greatest conservative thinkers have said that to change societies, one must understand them, accept them as they are and help them evolve.
[/i]
Read more: [url="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077943,00.html#ixzz1QzRXHN2i"]http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077943,00.html#ixzz1QzRXHN2i[/url]
[/quote]
The gist of Mr. Zakaria's piece seems to be that support fro cutting taxes equals losing touch with reality.

In that case, the American founding fathers - who were willing to go to war with England over taxes far, far smaller than those imposed by are current government - really need to be denounced as a bunch of delusional nutters.

Most conservatives support big cuts in government spending as well as lower taxes (in contrast to the practice of certain Republican politiicans).

If Zakaria wants to accuse conservatives in favor of tax cuts as being out of touch with reality, maybe he should explain exactly how he thinks high taxes will improve the economy. I have yet to hear a convincing case. Who's out of touch with reality?


But, obviously, we all know that anyone who opposes the tax, tax, spend, spend practices of Washington is a delusional nut-job who needs to be hauled off the funny farm.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Socrates

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1309741603' post='2262828']
The gist of Mr. Zakaria's piece seems to be that support fro cutting taxes equals losing touch with reality.

In that case, the American founding fathers - who were willing to go to war with England over taxes far, far smaller than those imposed by are current government - really need to be denounced as a bunch of delusional nutters.

Most conservatives support big cuts in government spending as well as lower taxes (in contrast to the practice of certain Republican politiicans).

If Zakaria wants to accuse conservatives in favor of tax cuts as being out of touch with reality, maybe he should explain exactly how he thinks high taxes will improve the economy. I have yet to hear a convincing case. Who's out of touch with reality?


But, obviously, we all know that anyone who opposes the tax, tax, spend, spend practices of Washington is a delusional nut-job who needs to be hauled off the funny farm.
[/quote]

Either you really are just dense or your trying to dodge Zakaria's argument by constructing a straw man.


Neither option is good. My money is on the second.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Hasan

[4588686]

A good counter to Zakaria was supplied by Douthat...


[url="http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/the-parties-of-no/"]http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/the-parties-of-no/
[/url]

[i]A few weeks ago, [/i][url="http://www.fareedzakaria.com/home/Articles/Entries/2011/6/16_How_Todays_Conservatism_Lost_Touch_with_Reality.html"][color="#00325b"][i]Fareed Zakaria wrote an essay for Time Magazine[/i][/color][/url][i] attacking American conservatism for having “lost touch with reality.” Whereas once the Right tried to grapple with the world as it actually is, he lamented, “conservatives now espouse ideas drawn from abstract principles with little regard to the realities of America’s present or past.”[/i]

[i]Zakaria’s critique landed some real blows. On economic policy, certainly, many conservative politicians seem to be caught in [/i][url="http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/tim-pawlentys-supply-side-time-warp/"][color="#00325b"][i]a supply-side time warp[/i][/color][/url][i], where the year is always 1979 and the prescription is always tax cuts and sound money. (The less said about the 2012 Republican field’s domestic policy vision, the better …) But like a lot of laments about Republican intransigence and right-wing anti-intellectualism, his piece was written as though America’s other political party doesn’t exist.... read more[/i]

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1309741603' post='2262828']
But, obviously, we all know that anyone who opposes the tax, tax, spend, spend practices of Washington is a delusional nut-job who needs to be hauled off the funny farm.
[/quote]

Are you capable of ending a post without sarcastically saying "but, obviously, we all know that anyone who opposes the [i]Liberal buzzword[/i] is a [i]BIG EVIL CONSERVATIVE[/i] who needs to be [i]Disposed of[/i]" ?

I feel like i would enjoy reading your posts more if you didnt remind me at the end of each one why i didnt enjoy reading your previous ones.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[SoylentGreene]

Honestly I see very little difference between conservative or liberal. They're equally corrupt.

[kujo]

[quote name='SoylentGreene' timestamp='1309796641' post='2263015']
Honestly I see very little difference between conservative or liberal. They're equally corrupt.
[/quote]

Truth.

Douthat finishes his response with this nice paragraph:

[quote]Now maybe Republican stubbornness on taxes is worse than Democratic stubbornness on entitlement reform: You can certainly make that case. (My current view is that the G.O.P.’s tax intransigence could have more short-term dangers — it would be dumb and reckless if the Republican leadership ultimately refuses a deal on the debt ceiling because it includes some loophole-closing for high earners, for instance — but that the Democrats’ Medicare intransigence is much more dangerous in the long run.) But at the very least, when it comes to America’s looming fiscal liabilities, it’s hard to argue that conservatives have a monopoly on unrealism.[/quote]

To me, that's the crux of the argument, and really a segue into something I've truly begun to believe; the notion of "small government conservativism" is long long gone. In its place, we have a Republican party who views the federal government in the same fundamental way that their Democratic counterparts do--as the most effective means to enact policy for the betterment of the country. Whereas in the past, the differences between the two sides have been largely fundamental, they've now become such that our system is a system of issue-politics, where you vote for a party solely based on whether or not they support a specific issue. No longer are we discussing whether the federal government is the most effective/appropriate agency for a given task (as opposed to lower levels of government).

I've long-since felt that people who cry "tyranny" and "socialism" at the current administration are morons. If you think THIS administration--arguably the most inept and clueless group of bureaucrats ever assembled-- is even remotely capable of AGGRESSIVE, let alone [i]tyrannical[/i], behavior, I've got some land down here in Florida that I'd like to sell you before our governor, Lord Voldemort Scott, uses it to build one of his corrupt hospital death pits.

[kujo]

[quote]The Republicans have changed American politics since they took control of the House of Representatives. They have put spending restraint and debt reduction at the top of the national agenda. They have sparked a discussion on entitlement reform. They have turned a bill to raise the debt limit into an opportunity to put the U.S. on a stable fiscal course.

Republican leaders have also proved to be effective negotiators. They have been tough and inflexible and forced the Democrats to come to them. The Democrats have agreed to tie budget cuts to the debt ceiling bill. They have agreed not to raise tax rates. They have agreed to a roughly 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to revenue increases, an astonishing concession.

Moreover, many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way. There are Democrats in the White House and elsewhere who would be willing to accept Medicare cuts if the Republicans would be willing to increase revenues.

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases.

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.

This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.

The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.

But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.

Over the past week, Democrats have stopped making concessions. They are coming to the conclusion that if the Republicans are fanatics then they better be fanatics, too.

The struggles of the next few weeks are about what sort of party the G.O.P. is — a normal conservative party or an odd protest movement that has separated itself from normal governance, the normal rules of evidence and the ancient habits of our nation.

If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.

And they will be right.[/quote]

Source: [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=OP-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-TMA-070511-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click"]NYTimes.com[/url]

[SoylentGreene]

Kujo I pretty much agree with everything you're saying.

[Winchester]

If tax rates are seen as too high, then removing loopholes would be objectionable. It would serve the same function as raising the tax rate. I understand the opposition. It's a different way of avoiding reduction in government power. Loopholes are a function of complex laws.

That article is written from the perspective that the government is entitled to the taxes it's already set and that the laws regarding taxes are acceptable.

It appeals to nameless scholars and states that the Republicans reject them. It fails to mention which system these scholars adhere to, not to mention that the scholars are basing their statements on theories. These "scholars" probably supported stimulus. But we don't know. It's a non-breathless hatchet piece. There is no depth, no discussion of an option of private solutions--in fact, the writer is certain that education must be ministered by the state--these programs will be cut and the Republicans (who are not a "normal" party) are willing to let education (by which the author means State supported education) be cut rather than allow taxes to be raised even a little. One might as well justify cooperating with a mugger who is willing to take only a portion of the money in your wallet. Alas, Republicans are willing to cut (government funded) research rather than cooperate with the system and permit it to only increase its power a little more. Thus it can wait, intact, for the day when more normal parties are in power.

The writer laments long term limits on government, yet subscribes to the world view in which education and research must be ministered by government. There will be no long term limits on government with such a mindset.

Yes, in this tax levels are everything. The amount of tax to which a government feels entitled is a good indicator of its perception of power over the people. The author views taxes as a small part of economic policy, failing to recognize that there is a faction that regards the government as unnecessary (indeed, as illustrated by the Great Depression) even destructive in planning the economy. He presupposes the need for government to involved itself in monitoring and taking an active role in the private economy. He either does not understand what he's arguing against or doesn't care. I'm guessing at the former, because the notion of central planning is deeply ingrained in modern citizens.

Hatchet piece. A calmly worded piece, but the words it chooses to employ to describe the Republican and the "odd" protest against government power is telling.

The Republicans in this current tax fight are no longer the conservatives--they are the liberals (or what best passes for liberals, outside of Libertarians).


Kujo's article quote is what I'm responding to.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Winchester

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309881791' post='2263268']
Source: [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=OP-SM-E-FB-SM-LIN-TMA-070511-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click"]NYTimes.com[/url]
[/quote]
What a crock.

[kujo]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1309898404' post='2263335']
What a crock.
[/quote]

Man. You people smell of elderberries.

You see "NY Times" and you immediately dismiss it. I thought it was a fairly objective piece, showing how neither side is really making any real moves to IMPROVE the situation. They just lock themselves in their ideological towers and shoot arrows at each other, more focused with "winning points" with their constituents than with actually accomplishing something.

[Chrysophylax]

Way over my head.... I don't really do politics (yet).
But I can endorse common stereo types (at least as expressed by Kujo) by saying that I don't like NY Times. Especially after doing a research report on bias in the media. Edited July 5, 2011 by Chrysophylax